Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

[joecct]

I've never understood your passion for Buchanan, and I likely never will.

Pat writes well and makes coherent arguments for the conservative cause. He is his own man and is not owned by any faction.

As to the italics. Google the VP candidate and you'll catch the drift of the post.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Soooo....nobody in the 9M or so voters who've backed Hillary are voting for her because she's 1) better suited for the job, 2) has more realistic plans, or 3) is covering a more diverse range of issues during the campaign. Nope. Its because of name recognition and her being a woman.

How elitist of you.

No, I answered your question. You asked why she has 2.5 million more votes than Bernie, that's the main reason why. I'm sure plenty of her supporters feel that she accomplishes 1, 2, and 3 and I recognize that.

 

[GrinCDXX]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

How elitist of you.

Oh yeah, you hate elitism.

Who are you?

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Oh yeah, you hate elitism.

Hey now, this is the #1 US college hockey message board in the world. Name recognition means a whole lot.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Oh yeah, you hate elitism.

I don't hate it at all. It just has to be earned. You don't finish 2nd in a contest and then get to dictate terms to the person who won. Why have a primary then?

No, I answered your question. You asked why she has 2.5 million more votes than Bernie, that's the main reason why. I'm sure plenty of her supporters feel that she accomplishes 1, 2, and 3 and I recognize that.

Fair enough. Although I will note she was a woman and had name recognition in 2008 as well.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Clinton is only slightly more tolerable than any Republican because she might throw us a bone.

And that's why I'll vote for her.

I'm fully behind Sanders because he's the only candidate talking about getting money out of the political process. But I don't think he's got a chance in hell of getting the nomination. So I'll vote Hillary. Unlike Trump and Cruz, who I have no doubts that once in office, everything they do will be for their benefit, or for the wealthy backers who support them, I think Hillary, while being about 80% for Hillary, at least has enough of a social conscience to throw the rest of us a measly 20% in policy efforts.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Even if you're a full on Sanders loon (not all of his supporters mind you, but a good portion of them ) you have to admit the following regarding Hillary:

1) She'll be strong on liberalizing access to voting (why wouldn't she - enhances her electability since Dems are usually disenfranchised)
2) She'll be a big advocate for women's rights as the symbolism of her being the first female President almost demands action
3) If her husband and Obama are any guide, she'll appoint a staunch liberal to the SCOTUS (again, why wouldn't she - its a lifetime appointment and a sure fire rebuttal to whiny lefties. Who has a problem with Ginsburg or Breyer?)

These alone make her eons better than anything the GOP is going to regurgitate even if you think the worst of the woman. So get on board people!

 

[Jimjamesak]

Even if you're a full on Sanders loon (not all of his supporters mind you, but a good portion of them ) you have to admit the following regarding Hillary:

1) She'll be strong on liberalizing access to voting (why wouldn't she - enhances her electability since Dems are usually disenfranchised)
2) She'll be a big advocate for women's rights as the symbolism of her being the first female President almost demands action
3) If her husband and Obama are any guide, she'll appoint a staunch liberal to the SCOTUS (again, why wouldn't she - its a lifetime appointment and a sure fire rebuttal to whiny lefties. Who has a problem with Ginsburg or Breyer?)

These alone make her eons better than anything the GOP is going to regurgitate even if you think the worst of the woman. So get on board people!

And we'll have to spend most of our energy negotiating half way decent medical coverage and a raise big enough to cover inflation. But hey, the stock market will go up...

 

[aparch]

So....who exactly is going to speak at the GOP Convention? ...no past nominees (can you image the reception Mittens will get with the Trump crowd? )...

Every time I see video of Drumpf or Mittens at a campaign rally I can't help but think of this scene from "The American President,"

[President Shepherd watches his opponent finish up a speech on CNN]

President Andrew Shepherd: Oh, wait a minute here comes my favorite part.

Bob Rumson: My name is Bob Rumson, and I'm running for President!

President Andrew Shepherd: Sure glad he cleared that up, because that crowd was about to buy some Amway products!

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

And we'll have to spend most of our energy negotiating half way decent medical coverage and a raise big enough to cover inflation. But hey, the stock market will go up...

You'd have to do that anyway....

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

And that's why I'll vote for her.

I'm fully behind Sanders because he's the only candidate talking about getting money out of the political process. But I don't think he's got a chance in hell of getting the nomination. So I'll vote Hillary. Unlike Trump and Cruz, who I have no doubts that once in office, everything they do will be for their benefit, or for the wealthy backers who support them, I think Hillary, while being about 80% for Hillary, at least has enough of a social conscience to throw the rest of us a measly 20% in policy efforts.

This is pretty much my thinking. On taxes and breaking up the banks she's maybe a 5% improvement on the GOP. On the Forever War and the Empire we don't know, since she's never called the policy shots, but so far everything she's signalled is that she'll be Obama redux -- so, we'll murder families in drone strikes but we won't torture them in our prison camps. Um... yay? On everything else she should be a significant improvement over the GOP. She'll never lead on a social issue, she's too much of a cowardly triangulator like Bill, but she will help cement the gains we've made, may help somewhat on women, and at worst keep the jackals from the door. Her SCOTUS appointees will be somewhere between Kennedy and Kagan, about a +1.0 Conservative on this scale. Not great and a big missed opportunity, but lightyears better than the goons.

 

[unofan]

And we'll have to spend most of our energy negotiating half way decent medical coverage and a raise big enough to cover inflation. But hey, the stock market will go up...

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in two generations is reason enough in and of itself to support Hillary if/when she secures the nomination.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Even if you're a full on Sanders loon (not all of his supporters mind you, but a good portion of them ) you have to admit the following regarding Hillary:

1) She'll be strong on liberalizing access to voting (why wouldn't she - enhances her electability since Dems are usually disenfranchised)
2) She'll be a big advocate for women's rights as the symbolism of her being the first female President almost demands action
3) If her husband and Obama are any guide, she'll appoint a staunch liberal to the SCOTUS (again, why wouldn't she - its a lifetime appointment and a sure fire rebuttal to whiny lefties. Who has a problem with Ginsburg or Breyer?)

These alone make her eons better than anything the GOP is going to regurgitate even if you think the worst of the woman. So get on board people!

1) Yes

2) She'll be a big advocate for middle class, educated women's rights. My god we'll make great gains on the glass ceiling during her administration. Poor women? Nah, they just churn out super-predators.

3) I'll believe it when I see it. If she appoints somebody farther left than Notorious RBG I will be shocked and surprised. I'm expecting the type of well-scrubbed DC insider judge who gets invited to Larry Summers' cocktail parties. Those folks will help with the Civil Rights Act, but they'll somehow forget to overturn McCutcheon and Citizens United.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Having a liberal majority on the Supreme Court for the first time in two generations is reason enough in and if itself to support Hillary if/when she secures the nomination.

Of course. But nobody here is saying they won't vote for Hillary if Bernie loses. We are saying that Bernie's polling against Drumpf, Cruz and Kasich is better than Hillary's, so let's work to make sure of that liberal majority and get behind someone who will win.

Plus, Bernie will appoint genuine liberals to the Court. This is liberalism's time. Are we going to take advantage, as the conservatives did during their hey day, or are we going to wuss out because old people still have the welts from when Reagan took them to the woodshed and are forever programmed to cry "not in the face!" whenever anybody raises the boogeyman of "too liberal"?

 

[Jimjamesak]

You'd have to do that anyway....

If this country had a single-payer system like any other competent country, no I wouldn't. And then we'd be able to focus negotiations on other badly needed stuff like better working rules. (And maybe even that free cookie on St. Patrick's Day...)

 

[Spartanforlife4]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

You'd have to do that anyway....

So wouldn't you want to start with an ideal position for negotiations rather than some middle stance that will probably get pushed further right in Congress?

 

[mookie1995]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

I'm fully behind Sanders because he's the only candidate talking about getting money out of the political process..

don't know the answer, but if that happens -- would it not benefit incumbents most?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

If this country had a single-payer system like any other competent country, no I wouldn't. And then we'd be able to focus negotiations on other badly needed stuff like better working rules. (And maybe even that free cookie on St. Patrick's Day...)

The progression goes Obamacare --> Public Option --> Single Payer. Hillary might introduce the Public Option unless whichever corporate lobbies that oppose it say no.

That's the thing with the Clintons: you'll get movement as long as they benefit. The moment they believe your proposal could even theoretically threaten their power, wealth, or insider connections, they'll backstab you.

To some extent every politician, even the Bernies and the Jimmy Carters, is like this. That's what being a pol is. The Clintons are just extreme cases. That turns out to be really useful: her Justice Department will probably try to prosecute states with voter suppression laws, because that could hurt her. Just don't think we're going to be making any progress in environmental or financial regulation. That will be all for show with no teeth, all larded over with lawyering and lies that make "what is is" look like the model of probity.

 

[unofan]

Of course. But nobody here is saying they won't vote for Hillary if Bernie loses. We are saying that Bernie's polling against Drumpf, Cruz and Kasich is better than Hillary's, so let's work to make sure of that liberal majority and get behind someone who will win.

Plus, Bernie will appoint genuine liberals to the Court. This is liberalism's time. Are we going to take advantage, as the conservatives did during their hey day, or are we going to wuss out because old people still have the welts from when Reagan took them to the woodshed and are forever programmed to cry "not in the face!" whenever anybody raises the boogeyman of "too liberal"?

I'm all for taking advantage, but I don't like derp, period. And the most ardent Bernie supporters, at least those on my Facebook feed and elsewhere, have more than their fair share of derp in their rantings. I've tended leftward as I age primarily because the left has been the adult in the room to the GOP's screaming toddlers, but I also see screaming tantrums coming from the left these days. They aren't nearly close to or equivalent to the GOP's yet, but I'm not liking even that slight/modest uptick

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part, let's say, X: There's a red moon rising On the Cuyahoga River

don't know the answer, but if that happens -- would it not benefit incumbents most?

Not really. I know what you're saying, but one of the advantages of incumbency is it also draws the most bribes. On the whole, public financing would make elections more competitive, particularly when combined with an end to partisan gerrymandering.